World's Largest Solar Plant - a Mishap

[Truthseeker]

That is adding a LOT to what Paul has said. Paul says NOTHING about God's punishment of the Jews in relation to this admonition, The context is how we should behave relative to the non-Christian world. Consider the paragraph preceding Romans 13:

Source: Romans 12:17-21

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

© Copyright Original Source

There is not much of an out given the context.

Further, he is writing to the Church AT ROME - which included a good many gentiles, so seriously - you are trying to say that Paul was telling the Roman Gentile Christians that they ought to pay Roman taxes because the Jewish people were being punished for disobediance! I think you need to rethink your position here.

It is still not clear why you seem to think Romans 13 is telling us how much government we should have.

Totally irrelevant to the point. Without a government there is anarchy. Anarchy is the biggest and the strongest take from everybody else.

Well, sure, anarchy = no government. Maybe you meant something else, though? I do not understand the last sentence.

So, even though I'm guessing you are unlikely to admit it, no government (no State) is trivially shown to be a far worse situation having a government (the State). And that applies even when the government is oppressive (my point in using Romans 13). However, we don't have a truly oppressive government by any realistic historical standard - or even by the standards of the world today. Would you rather be in Russia, or China, or North Korea?

How is comparing a government to the others supposed to bear on the question of anarchy?

Yeah - and what makes you able to do it when no-one else can? Don't you realize that your zeal for Libertarianism is just as precariously based in terms of whether or not the good would outweigh the bad as virtually any other position on government?



And why does that NOT apply to your position?

Now you are admitting that you don't know whether the State is doing more good than bad or that we should rely on the State to do more good than bad . . . yes?

Well - yeah. That and just being more concerned about their immediate problems with Johnny and the latest round of fights over video games. That and the leaky roof and what to cook for dinner.

Ah, so that's why the American Revolution failed.

That is why pure democracies don't work so good. You need the people running the government to at least have some reason and capability of focusing on the problems at hand.

Just stating what the government ought to do or what kind of people we should allow to run the government . . . does not bear at all on which--anarchy or the State--is best.

Well of course, that is how we solve the problems when we accidentally create bad laws, and how we close back doors for getting around the laws we want to enforce. And this says nothing about the point made. Some laws might only last a few years, but most (e.g. murder/rape are illegal) tend to outlast the governments that enforce them. Emotions over things like how a corporation is treating people hundreds of miles away might last of few months, if people are really, really angry about something. The only way to really get people mad and keep them mad is for them to be the people affected every day by the injustice. And usually that is too small a group to make any difference using something like a boycott. Unless the boycott is government enforced ...

Yeah, people don't care enough or have no time, but that is not any answer to the anarchy v. State debate. Which is better? Or, does the State really improve on an anarchist world?

There is, I think, an answer from praxeology to the anarchy v. State question. So far I have not started to explain.

[oxmixmudd]

Nice set of dodges 'truthseeker', but I'm just really not interested enough in this topic to try to get you to actually address the points made. But if you don't care enough about the truth not to play tactical games aimed at avoiding it, then we have nothing else left to discuss.

It is still not clear why you seem to think Romans 13 is telling us how much government we should have.



Well, sure, anarchy = no government. Maybe you meant something else, though? I do not understand the last sentence.

How is comparing a government to the others supposed to bear on the question of anarchy?



Now you are admitting that you don't know whether the State is doing more good than bad or that we should rely on the State to do more good than bad . . . yes?



Ah, so that's why the American Revolution failed.



Just stating what the government ought to do or what kind of people we should allow to run the government . . . does not bear at all on which--anarchy or the State--is best.



Yeah, people don't care enough or have no time, but that is not any answer to the anarchy v. State debate. Which is better? Or, does the State really improve on an anarchist world?

There is, I think, an answer from praxeology to the anarchy v. State question. So far I have not started to explain.

[Truthseeker]

The truth is that by at least one measure governments do more bad than good. I am sorry you are not interested in testing that proposition.